• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida Restores Early Voting Days, Moves Back Primary.....

Actually I think we are better off by not having the people who do not vote, not voting. Also when something can be done at one's convenience if one is to do it, it really must not be all that important then. You are correct on the absentee ballot.

So making voting "inconvenient" is how a Democracy should work? You obviously don't want the will of the people to be heard because you are afraid of what I that will is.
You need to find a dictatorship to live in.
 
LOL Scott is up for reelection next year and his polls are horrible. You don't suppose that could be the reason?
Republicans in other States are still passing laws to restrict legal voters.

IDK. I don't follow FL politics. I have no idea who put all those amendments on the ballot. From what I have heard though makes me think FL is just too damn cheap to have local elections different from state/federal elections so it all gets crammed down their throats at once. I am not sure that is the smartest way to do it.
 
For Congress yes. For President no. The popular vote in the entire state is used, so gerrymandering has no effect. But yes, you are right. Gerrymandering has been used since the founding of our nation to rig the makeup of Congress, and has become an institution (NOTE: which is where some of our Congresscritters belong :mrgreen:). That's why red states are so red, and blue states are so blue. LOL.

Yeah, that darn Elbidge Gerry who invented gerrymandering way back in 1812. Been with us ever since. yep, the true vote means little.
 
So making voting "inconvenient" is how a Democracy should work? You obviously don't want the will of the people to be heard because you are afraid of what I that will is.
You need to find a dictatorship to live in.

Is actually going back to voting in a single day really making it inconvenient? There was actually higher participation when voting was done this way. I posted the stats earlier. Since early began, the percentage of participation has actually declined.
 
Yeah, that darn Elbidge Gerry who invented gerrymandering way back in 1812. Been with us ever since. yep, the true vote means little.
Until states like Pennsylvania go back to the CD method, which was prevalent before the 10th amendment's war.
 
Until states like Pennsylvania go back to the CD method, which was prevalent before the 10th amendment's war.

Nebraska and Maine have that now and any state can do it anytime they please.
 
For Congress yes. For President no. The popular vote in the entire state is used, so gerrymandering has no effect. But yes, you are right. Gerrymandering has been used since the founding of our nation to rig the makeup of Congress, and has become an institution (NOTE: which is where some of our Congresscritters belong :mrgreen:). That's why red states are so red, and blue states are so blue. LOL.

Gerrymandering will be overly prevalent once states like Pennsylvania and Virginia go back to the CD method, only used in Nebraska and Maine for now. You may have noticed how Repukes Gerry-mandered the Omaha CD away from Obama. This is not a game and Repukes don't play.
 
Nebraska and Maine have that now and any state can do it anytime they please.

And then Gerry-mandering will determine the POTUS. RepubLies haven't pulled this trigger yet.
 
And then Gerry-mandering will determine the POTUS. RepubLies haven't pulled this trigger yet.

yes, if the states decide to go to it. Others say it is a more representative way of awarding the electoral votes. As it is if you win Georgia by 1 vote, you get all her 16 EV. Under CD awarding, the awarding of those 16 EV would probably be 8-8 or 9-7. But your point is well taken and I prefer to leave it as is.
 
Is actually going back to voting in a single day really making it inconvenient? There was actually higher participation when voting was done this way. I posted the stats earlier. Since early began, the percentage of participation has actually declined.

Now you want me to believe black is white and I am not buying it.
Making things more difficult does not result in more of it. You can't prove cause and effect from that data.
 
Now you want me to believe black is white and I am not buying it.
Making things more difficult does not result in more of it. You can't prove cause and effect from that data.

You're right and what I think has no chance of changing anything. It is just my opinion. To me, early voting just seems wrong, but I explained those reasons earlier. What I think may have caused the huge drop off, from around 63% of all eligible voters in the 60's to around 53% today is the advent of negative political attack ads. I am old enough to remember the presidential races of 1956 and 1960. No negative ads at all. Some of the ads were jingles like in 1956, a song, "You like IKE, I like Ike, Everyone likes IKE." It was a ditty that even today sticks in my head.

The first negative attack ad I can remember was in 1964 when LBJ ran the flower girl ad against Goldwater. But so many people thought it was way out of bounds, that he ran it only once and the media gave him a good going over for it. But it accomplished what LBJ wanted. As the media was busy saying the ad was wrong, they were showing it over and over again in their newscasts.

I was in southeast Asia in 68 and 72, but I can't say what went on then. But in 76 the attack ads were pretty mild if you could even call them an attack ad. Most focused on Ford's pardon of Nixon and that was fair game. 80 and 84, mild was still the name of the game. Perhaps in 1988 is when the negative attack ad came into vogue full fledged. Willie Horton stays in my mind. Since then attacking a person's character whether based on fact or not has become normal and I think makes a l of people just stay away from the polls. Come voting day, they think both candidates are nothing but scumbags and they decide not to vote for either scumbag A or scumbag B. I also think all these negative attack ads has made it harder for compromise and across the aisle working together. After having been called every name in the book by you opposing candidate and party, have had every little indiscretion of your past dug up and paraded in front of the nation, if I won, I do not think I would want to work with the opposing party either. I would dig in my heels to make life as miserable as I can for them as payback.
 
yes, I agree on greater participation. It might be the age factor with me. I seen done in a single day for so long, it just doesn't seem right to spread it over so many days. That sort of seems un-American and I do not mean that in a derogatory way. I mean we have election day, not election days or election weeks or as is the case in Ohio, perhaps election months. Just chalk this up to an old coot that is set in his ways and routines and by dat gum, don't make me take my morning dump in the afternoon.

But as I stated before, I do not think this early voting has increased participation one iota. Here are the averages voter particpation by decades.

1960's 62%
1970's 54%
1980's 52%
1990's 52%
2000's 54%

I don't have any stats pre 1960 and I don't know when early voting began.

It may have slowed the decline. Certainly it couldn't have hurt anything.
Expanded voting means nobody has to choose between voting and working. Technically an employer has to let you take time off to vote but it still can have consequences.
 
It may have slowed the decline. Certainly it couldn't have hurt anything.
Expanded voting means nobody has to choose between voting and working. Technically an employer has to let you take time off to vote but it still can have consequences.

What is your view on the negative attack ad? Do you think all the negative ads constantly attacking the other candidate could have those voters who are not die hard Republicans or Democrats, who really only have a mild interest in politics to stay home. Basically saying they are not going to vote scumbag A or scumbag B. See my post #36 for more details.
 
The bill also moves the date of the state's presidential primary to conform with rules set by the national political parties, potentially helping Florida Senator Marco Rubio, considered a possible front-runner for the Republican Party nomination in 2016.

That's why it's happening now.
Again Florida moves it's Primary.....here Obama took the State. Yet the Democrats accused Republicans of trying to suppress votes of blacks and college students last year. Since Scott wouldn't extend the time which they wanted him to do while the election was taking place. Thoughts upon the matter?

That was just the pre-cuse. One thing both sides did well was line up the excuses ahead of time.
 
What is your view on the negative attack ad? Do you think all the negative ads constantly attacking the other candidate could have those voters who are not die hard Republicans or Democrats, who really only have a mild interest in politics to stay home. Basically saying they are not going to vote scumbag A or scumbag B. See my post #36 for more details.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to early voting. I want to give people greater opportunity to vote. Attack ads might turn some off, but that's still a choice they get to make. I don't think a busy schedule should make that decision for them.
 
I'm not sure how this is relevant to early voting. I want to give people greater opportunity to vote. Attack ads might turn some off, but that's still a choice they get to make. I don't think a busy schedule should make that decision for them.

I was addressing the participation issue which is apart of early voting since early voting was installed to increase participation which apparently it hasn't. Perhaps early voting means nothing if you end up with the same participation percentage as you had without it. If as you said, you think early voting has at least limit the decline of those who do not vote or at least held it steady. It seems as if more and more people either do not care who wins or they have decided it makes no difference.

I still would like to know what you think about the negative attack ads, could it be even with early voting, these ads are keeping the percentage the same or adding to those who do not care and do not vote?
 
I was addressing the participation issue which is apart of early voting since early voting was installed to increase participation which apparently it hasn't. Perhaps early voting means nothing if you end up with the same participation percentage as you had without it. If as you said, you think early voting has at least limit the decline of those who do not vote or at least held it steady. It seems as if more and more people either do not care who wins or they have decided it makes no difference.

I still would like to know what you think about the negative attack ads, could it be even with early voting, these ads are keeping the percentage the same or adding to those who do not care and do not vote?

As much as everyone whines about negative ads, I don't think both parties would utilize them so severely if they didn't work. They've got oodles of people whose job it is to figure out what ads are effective and what ads aren't. You might see a negative ad from your own side and be disgusted at the moment, and that ad might even be a straight-up lie. (hell, most of them probably are) But you wont remember that. Someone links you a fact-check, debunks the ad, you read it. But it doesn't stick. A month later, all you remember is the attack, it rolls around in the back of your head and stays there because it's an attack against someone you disagree with.

Negative ads are also not something you can really do anything about. Ban negative ads? Who gets to decide what counts as negative?
 
Last edited:
Do they lower participation? I don't know. If so, they must lower participation more or less uniformly. Elections are always pretty close. It would be interesting to see how voter turnout among "independent" or "undecided" voters has gone. Although I think that's hard to judge. There are a lot of so-called independents who are really just Democrats or Republicans who want to sound more moderate or impartial than they are, or who are fed up with their own party but will end up voting for them anyway. We saw a lot of this in 2008. Republicans were really unhappy with the GOP, and many began calling themselves independents... and then obviously voted McCain anyway.
 
As much as everyone whines about negative ads, I don't think both parties would utilize them so severely if they didn't work. They've got oodles of people whose job it is to figure out what ads are effective and what ads aren't. You might see a negative ad from your own side and be disgusted at the moment, and that ad might even be a straight-up lie. (hell, most of them probably are) But you wont remember that. Someone links you a fact-check, debunks the ad, you read it. But it doesn't stick. A month later, all you remember is the attack, it rolls around in the back of your head and stays there because it's an attack against someone you disagree with.

Negative ads are also not something you can really do anything about. Ban negative ads? Who gets to decide what counts as negative?

Do they lower participation? I don't know. If so, they must lower participation more or less uniformly. Elections are always pretty close. It would be interesting to see how voter turnout among "independent" or "undecided" voters has gone. Although I think that's hard to judge. There are a lot of so-called independents who are really just Democrats or Republicans who want to sound more moderate or impartial than they are, or who are fed up with their own party but will end up voting for them anyway. We saw a lot of this in 2008. Republicans were really unhappy with the GOP, and many began calling themselves independents... and then obviously voted McCain anyway.

I am not worry about whom these people would have voted for. That is irrelevant. You are right, they do work or else parties wouldn't spend millions of dollars on them. It may be the reason voter participation continues to fall is people have just given up on the system and know that regardless of who wins, they will still be getting screwed.
 
Back
Top Bottom